WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, but may I also point out that one of our biggest problems on EN
wiki is that even good faith newbies will often have their edits
reverted. [...] By contrast commons is a relatively lonely
place.
This comment reminds me that for
Hello,
As far as it is about me, I can say that I left wikimedia-l twice or
three times. I left mainly because of the high amount of mails, also
often not very useful mails, witty remarks in 1-2 lines for example.
But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
that should
Hello Ziko,
Am 05.06.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com:
But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
that should later lead you to a qualitative look. And maybe it is
indeed an indicator for something. In systems theory, one might think
that the
Yes, but may I also point out that one of our biggest problems on EN wiki is
that even good faith newbies will often have their edits reverted. If you add
uncited facts to a page you are now much more likely to have your edit reverted
than to have someone add citation needed so I would suggest
HI Ziko,
I agree. That sounds like a TL;DR of my research agenda. :D
- It started with
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
- So I tied to make assessing newcomers easier
The number one problem with Wikipedia seems to be the assessment of
newbies and the communication with them. We often don't have enough
information in order to see whether a contribution was made in good or
bad faith. We usually simply revert.
If the contribution was made in bad faith, that
Here's a list of possible metrics that we could use for measuring
community health.
That's a great list, with some great metrics. I'd be included to add some
silo-breaking metrics which measure activity across projects or across
silos within projects:
* Number of editors with actions/edits on
Hi Luis, Aaron and all,
Here's a list of possible metrics that we could use for measuring community
health.
Introductory notes:
* I emphasized the number of unique contributors rather than number of
contributions.
* All of these metrics can be calculated over a variety of time-frames,
although I
Am 04.06.2015 um 19:11 schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com:
Reduced traffic on Wikimedia-l is mostly due to list moderation.
That's plausible. Most people on wikimedia-l are moderated by now; I and
others unsubscribed due to tyrannical moderation, too.
Well, not exactly
Am 05.06.2015 um 01:05 schrieb Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org:
We should concentrate on factual data for research in a long email
about how everything is ruined forever because a moderator couldn't
find anything of value in an uncited claim that Jan-Bart actively
drove people away?
We should concentrate on factual data for research in a long email
about how everything is ruined forever because a moderator couldn't
find anything of value in an uncited claim that Jan-Bart actively
drove people away?
This must be what people mean by mixed methods ;)
On 4 June 2015 at 18:29,
Juergen Fenn, 04/06/2015 16:50:
Reduced traffic on Wikimedia-l is mostly due to list moderation.
That's plausible. Most people on wikimedia-l are moderated by now; I
and others unsubscribed due to tyrannical moderation, too.
Nemo
___
Am 04.06.2015 um 16:55 schrieb Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com:
Hi Juergen, That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to
support it?
Of course, I cannot tell which guidelines are in force from the Foundation's
point of view. As I said, I can tell from my personal
Context: reduced traffic on wikimedia-l.
Is this a sign of poor community health?
To what extent has community energy and activity moved to other fora?
Is list activity (for certain lists) a useful measure of activity and
enthusiasm (about certain parts of the projects)?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at
Am 04.06.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Context: reduced traffic on wikimedia-l.
Is this a sign of poor community health?
Reduced traffic on Wikimedia-l is mostly due to list moderation. All critical
content has been filtered for a while. I became aware of it only
...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:55:02 -0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)
Hi Juergen, That's an interesting hypothesis. Do
you have any evidence to support it?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Juergen Fenn
jf...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 04.06.2015 um 16:33
-0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)
Hi Juergen, That's an interesting hypothesis. Do
you have any evidence to support it?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Juergen Fenn
jf...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 04.06.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Samuel Klein meta
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anecdata, but: as someone who no longer posts to wikimedia-l, I
stopped posting because I find it a fundamentally toxic place to be.
And related to this, when was the last time anyone recommended to a newbie:
subscribe
Hi Pine,
Can you provide us with a quick summary of the start of this conversation
and what the these kinds of questions might be?
Thanks!
-Aaron
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of specialized lists, I'd like to suggest that this discussion
would
Speaking of specialized lists, I'd like to suggest that this discussion
would be well suited to Research-l, where many people who are interested in
these kinds of questions read and write about them more frequently than
they do on Wikimedia-l. I'm boldly adding that list to the recipients for
this
20 matches
Mail list logo
